It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nearly 5 minutes of Unedited audio from within WTC on 9/11 - ***WARNING: GRAPHIC IMAGES AND AUDIO***

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:16 AM
link   
But everyone keeps talking about how the camera across the river recorded explosions, and people in the building reported hearing explosions.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
But everyone keeps talking about how the camera across the river recorded explosions, and people in the building reported hearing explosions.


Explosions were going off. The question is why are they are not heard going off in this 5 minutes of audio?

Yet they were distinctivly picked out of ALOT of the video footage and even some of the firefighter radio transmissions. So why are they (explosions) missing from this 5 mins just before the subsequent collapse?


Nik'



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:40 AM
link   
They may have heard explosions, as you would expect in a situation like this, but I find it hard to believe that a camcorder across the way can pick up these ear-shattering demolition explosions and yet a microphone in the building near the point collapse initiated did not (even though it clearly picked up the collapsing noise).


[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Zaphod.

See my edit to my previous post.

Just like you official guys keep claiming that the 9/11 eyewitness tapes have been inhanced, could this recording have been uninhanced to cover up the explosions? I mean, they've had a heck of a lot of time to do it.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
They may have heard explosions, as you would expect in a situation like this, but I find it hard to believe that a camcorder across the way can pick up these ear-shattering explosions and yet a microphone in the building near the point collapse initiated did not (even though it clearly picked up the collapsing noise).


So, you believe that people heard explosions? So, how does this correlate to NO explosions on the cell phone call? I see it one of two ways.

a) There were no explosions and the people who heard them are just plain stupid or lying.

b) There were explosions and the people who heard them are correct. The cell phone either didn't pick them up or was faked.

I personally go with B.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   
The explosions could have been a variety of things, the ones I find most concerning are the ones in the 911Eyewitness video which can apparantly be heard clearly across the water. There should be no dispute if they are genuine and they should be on the 911 call tape.

The critical thing about this is that there are no explosions immediately prior to the initiation of collapse.

Thing is, in a game where all evidence is questionable, where do you draw the line? How can we trust any of it? How do I know the WTC or America even exists? I know LA exists, I had to stop there sadly a couple of times, but how do I know the rest is real? How do I know the Pentagon exists? How do we know planes hit at all unless we were there? How do we know we are even conscious and not in the Matrix?
How do we know the movie 'The Matrix' wasn't a COINTELPRO disinformation campaign to drive us away from the truth?
How do we know the Earth is really round? None of us have been in space, have we? How do we know the images NASA shows us arn't photoshopped..
How do we know this isn't The Truman Show?

If our Governments can kill their own people and destroy their own landmarks for money, why can't an individual or small group stick some sound effects on a video and flog it to unsuspecting, trusting, folk for money?

If we accept cults will kill each other/commit sucide, if you get even Christian fanatics who kill, Animal right activists that dig up dead bodies to make a statement, why can't you get a group of religously motivated individuals to hijack a plane (which has been done numerous times in the past) and fly it into a building? I'm not saying that the puppet masters were religous nuts though, who knows who pulled the strings and their true motivations....
One thing the people forget to think about is that even though the people who carried out the attack may have been motivated by religon, the people that funded and inspired them may not have been.

Strikes me, and both 'sides' are guilty including me, that evidence is good as long as it backs up our own opinion and it's fraud if it doesn't.

Hell I wonder what the point is, we can't trust anyone or anything so why bother...

I do notice (and it's usually on the conspiracy side) that things are looked at incredibly illogically some of the time, like the statements regarding '2 small pockets of fire' for instance.. Hell you don't need a diploma to understand they were on the first floor of damage... Saying they meant anything else uses the logic that would allow statements like 'It's sunny in the UK so it's sunny in Australia' to be made - saying that as the Earth is more than likely really flat, it is possible! Maybe the Earth is a hexagon? That would be interesting...

I could go on, but I know I've probably already attracted more COINTELPRO and distraction accusations, so I won't..

[edit on 13-4-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
They may have heard explosions, as you would expect in a situation like this, but I find it hard to believe that a camcorder across the way can pick up these ear-shattering demolition explosions and yet a microphone in the building near the point collapse initiated did not (even though it clearly picked up the collapsing noise).


As I recall in 911Eyewitness, weren't the explosions 'apparantly' comming from the sub-levels and wasn't there molten steel underneath the WTC rubble?

Now if the 'apparant' explosions were comming from the sub-levels wouldn't it be difficult to hear them over 110 stories up, you know what with the alarms, screams etc. in the background and if this recording was taken from a mobile or even landline phone then I doubt the microphone would not be able to pick up anything in the WTC basements but then again I wouldn't know.

The questions continue.......



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:25 AM
link   
As I've said over and over, there were so many things in that building that could explode. Yes, there were explosions reported. Does this automatically make them demo charges? No. Not even close. You had natural gas lines all through the building, transformers, on several levels IIRC, and many other things that could have caused explosions.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Many witnesses on the ground reported pre collapse explosions, and 911 Eyewitness supports that.

A short clip:
www.mypetgoat.tv...

MSNBC Reporter, Ann Thompson: "At 10:30 I tried to leave the building, but as soon as I got outside I heard a second explosion and another rumble and more smoke and more dust. I ran inside the building and the chandelier shook and again black smoke filled the air. Within another five minutes we were covered again with more soot and more dust. And then a fire marshal came in and said we had to leave, because if there was a third explosion this building might not last."


“We’ve heard reports of secondary explosions after the aircraft impacted, whether in fact there wasn't something else at the base of the towers that in fact were the coup de grace to bring them to the ground



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
As I've said over and over, there were so many things in that building that could explode. Yes, there were explosions reported. Does this automatically make them demo charges? No. Not even close. You had natural gas lines all through the building, transformers, on several levels IIRC, and many other things that could have caused explosions.


But then wouldn't this cell phone have picked up said explosions? I mean if we are arguing that the cell phone would pick up explosions from bombs, why wouldn't it have picked up explosions from other things? Can't have it both ways....either there were explosions or not. The fact that you can't hear explosions in this 5 minutes is telling that they probably edited them out....or you would hear these hairspray canisters going off.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
Once again, if there were explosions in the base substantial enough to bring the buildings down, why did they clearly collapse down from the points of impact and how were there survivors in the lower floors of the core?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
Once again, if there were explosions in the base substantial enough to bring the buildings down, why did they clearly collapse down from the points of impact and how were there survivors in the lower floors of the core?


Because the lower floors that these people were in weren't in the basement levels. These people were in the part of the core that still stood I believe. So, how does one go from people on the first couple floors to being in the basement 6 floors lower?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Wow - Those last 5 seconds gave me the creeps! A real warning to anyone..!

I've never been so emotionally touched as 911.. Its was a very sad day indeed..



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Who is claiming the explosions occured on each floor?

So no explosions heard during phone call as the phone was not on a floor that had an explosion. Perhaps the phonecall was made 10/20 floors above or below the explosive level.

The audio from across the river is still valid imo, the mic was in place to receive the signal, unlike the phone.



[edit on 13-4-2006 by The Links]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
These people were in the part of the core that still stood I believe. So, how does one go from people on the first couple floors to being in the basement 6 floors lower?


Because any demolition explosions in the basement would cause everything above it to collapse. There would be no floors left standing of the core, what would be the point of having demolition charges that leave everything above standing? How did it collapse from them if their base was still there?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Don't forget that the debris AROUND the core structure would have supported the core structure even if it was demolished from the bottom. Try this....take a pencil and try and stand it on end...doesn't work right? Now try it again and pack (even loosely) some sand around the pencil.....see the difference?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Yes I see what you mean I think, I've been going on the assumption that it is standing on it's original foundations in the same place, but you mean that it could have dropped as a segment? I hadn't really considered that I admit.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Just my little theory of how it could have happened. Thanks for the reply AgentSmith.....oh, on a totally unrelated note. I see a guy that works in my building (at least I think he works here) that looks exactly like you. I remember the picture you posted. You sure you're a brit and don't work in DC? Just kidding man...keep up the good work.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   
What if the explosions were edited out of the audio? The government doesn't release anything until after severely censoring. I mean we can't even get them to release all those video tapes that would prove one way or another on what kind of plane actually hit the pentagon.

You compare the WTC collapse to all videotaped controlled demolitions and it's the exact same.

Thats an undeniable fact. If there weren't explosives planted in the building then the tower should have falled all the way to 42nd street if I'm correct on the streets.

Anyways there's no possible way that a plane hits the towers in the upper floors then in the middle and for it to have collapsed like a controlled demolition like collapse.

Agent Smith you should look into the WTC powerdown on the weekend before. There are accurate reports floating around out there that the building suffered a power surge similar to the Capitol building recently. The WTC's security was out for 36 hours and dog sniffer dogs were removed under orders.

Put 2 and 2 together already. Buildings don't collapse like that unless explosives were planted inside. You line up videos of controlled demolitions and the WTC collapse and it's exactly the same. Something is clearly not right about the 9/11 "official" story. there are literally thousands of pieces of the puzzle waiting to be discovered by the naysayers. For instance the Joint Cheifs of Staff who cancelled a major meeting that was to be held in NYC on 9/11. They cancelled the night before. Thats not even the tip of the iceburg.

[edit on 13-4-2006 by Crazy_Mr_Crowley]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I clicked on the link and very briefly scanned through all of the pictures.

of ALL of them......the one that caught my eye as the most interesting is the picture of the red bandana.


flight 93 crashed.....and burned.....

yet this bandana looks brand new.....BRAND NEW.

click on the high - res link and zoom in on the picture.

take a good look at the bandana all the way around. it look spotless.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join